Amicus Briefs

The Amicus Committee and CACJ's volunteer brief writers offer arguments
that have proven to be of significance to the courts and to the defense
bar, resulting in many significant decisions of reviewing courts. On occasion
CACJ helps to defray the cost of producing the briefing. The work of the
Amicus Committee is an important part of CACJ's contributions.

Amicus Briefs 2015 - Current

McDonough v. Smith

McDonough v Smith, United States Supreme Court, June 2019: The United States Supreme Court
handed down a rare reversal of the Second Circuit in an important civil
rights case for those seeking damages because of a prosecution based on
fabricated evidence. The Second Circuit had ruled that the statute of
limitations runs from the time that the aggrieved person discovers the
fabrication--regardless of whether the underlying criminal case was still
ongoing or not. CACJ and a number of organizations including Brooklyn
Defender Services argued it was fundamentally unfair to force relief to
be sought that early in the process, and that the plaintiff in such a
case could wait until the criminal case had terminated in his or her favor
before filing a civil rights action. The Court agreed that where the theory
of liability involves malicious prosecution, imposing an early statute
of limitations was not in keeping with the concept of allowing opportunity
for redress.

The case has significance for those falsely or fraudulently accused, including
those with innocence claims whose opportunity for relief would (and in
certain historical cases did) run out if the Second Circuit's reasoning
prevailed. CACJ and fellow amici were represented by lawyers from Arnold
& Porter and Kaye Scholer in Washington, D.C..

People v. Barajas (California S.C.)

The Los Angeles Public Defender's Office is seeking review of a ruling
that limits the prerogative that the same court had provided, several
years ago, to a trial court to review the validity of Fourth Amendment
seizure issues at time of misdemeanor arraignment under Penal Code Section
991. The case appeared headed for appellate review once before with support
from the San Francisco Public Defender. J.T. Philipsborn on letter brief for CACJ.

People v. Martinez (California S.C.)

CACJ has filed a letter brief requesting that the California Supreme Court
either grant review to or depublish the Martinez decision by the Second
Appellate District, 31 Cal. App. 5th 719. Martinez is one of the SB 1437
cases in which a reviewing case has shown only a grudging interpretation
of SB 1437 permitting petitions for relief from murder convictions suffered
by other than actual killers under specified circumstances. Several Court
of Appeal rulings have, as argued in the letter, seemingly undermined
the purpose of SB 1437, which was enacted thanks to efforts by CACJ and
others. The letter brief was co-authored by Cliff Gardner and Eric Multhaup,
and was submitted by Steve Dunkle and John Philipsborn.

Taylor v. Pima County (Ninth Circuit)

CACJ has joined with several other organizations including NACDL in urging
the Ninth Circuit to consider whether persons claiming the right to recover
damages for wrongful imprisonment who were released from custody on that
basis can seek violation of civil rights based damages regardless of whether
they raised actual innocence claims in a habeas corpus proceeding, or
whether they entered no contest pleas as part of the resolution of their
cases during the litigation of their cases. On the latter issue especially,
since a number of persons claiming actual innocence have been freed on
condition of the entry of a no contest plea, this is a case of concern
to those seeking compensation for wrongful imprisonment. Donald Falk of
Mayer Brown took the lead for CACJ and NACDL.

McDonough v. Smith (USSC)

McDonough v Smith (U.S. Supreme Court) CACJ joined a number of organizations,
including Brooklyn Defender Services and many others, in a brief attacking
the current procedure under which an individual suing for civil rights
damages under a theory of unlawful fabrication of evidence in a criminal
case has to file as soon as the individual 'learns about' the fabrication.
The brief argues that this rule is unfair and unworkable. Lawyers from
Arnold & Porter in Washington, D.C. on brief. Steve Dunkle and John
Philipsborn reviewed the case and the brief for CACJ

People v. Cooper

CACJ submitted an amicus brief in the
People v Cooper case. This week Governor Jerry Brown exercised his authority to grant
review of this capital case. We look forward to the Governor taking further
actions on cases before he leaves office next month.

2018

People v. Lee

24 Cal.App.5th 50 (Restitution for non-economic damages is available to
certain victims of child sex abuse.)

2018

People v. Buza

4 Cal.5th 658 (The provision of the DNA Fingerprint, Unsolved Crimes and
Innocence Protection Act which requires a defendant to submit a cheek
swab DNA sample does not violate the defendant’s rights under the
Fourth Amendment or California Constitution.)

2018

People v. Miracle (California Supreme Court)

CACJ has filed a brief in support of the State Public Defender's argument
that Penal Code Section 1018 mandating that the accused in a capital case
have counsel of record, and consent of that counsel, to plead guilty is
a constitutionally valid statute that promotes public policy in favor
of exercising care in the litigation of capital cases. Andrea Asaro of
OSPD for the appellant. J.T. Philipsborn on brief for CACJ

Facebook v. Superior Court (Touchstone)

In this litigation pending before the California Supreme Court, CACJ has
filed a supplemental brief explaining why it supports Real Party Touchstone's
arguments in favor of the creation of procedures for individuals charged
with crimes in California courts to be able to procure access to stored
electronic media from companies like Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat (to
name a few) notwithstanding the federal Stored Communications Act. Don
Landis briefed the matter in CACJ's initial brief. J.T. Philipsborn on
brief on the supplemental brief.

Sean Garvin v New York

CACJ is joined in an amicus brief filed in the United States Supreme Court
by Mark Thompson and other lawyers at Washington, D.C.'s Crowell and Moring
on behalf of several organizations including CACJ. CACJ's amicus committee
chair, Steve Dunkle, and vice chair John Philipsborn, were both involved
in the drafting process and contributed material to demonstrate California's
interest in the litigation that asks the Court to recognize that there
is no exception to the warrant requirement that would be permit a warrantless
arrest of persons who are in the doorway on a home. The case addresses
the argument that there is a doorway exception to the warrant requirement.

S.V. v. Superior Court (Harris)

CACJ has filed a letter brief supporting the Orange County Public Defender's
petition for review of a published Court of Appeal ruling that denied
the accused in a criminal case access to files pertinent to him that were
part of a juvenile court proceeding. The Los Angeles Public Defender and
CPDA also filed letter briefs. Steve Dunkle and John Philipsborn on brief for CACJ.

United States v. Fell

CACJ joined the NACDL Death Penalty Committee in a brief filed in the Second
Circuit in a pending capital case,
United States v. Fell, in which the Circuit is considering whether to uphold a trial court ruling that the
Crawford rule applies to penalty evidence, and should result in a co-defendant's
statement to police being excluded at the penalty trial. CACJ Amicus Co-Chair
John Philipsborn and California based Michael Burt are counsel of record
for Donald Fell before the Second Circuit, and in the trial court. John
Mills of San Francisco wrote the amicus brief for CACJ and NACDL.

People v. Valencia

People v. Ryann Lynn Jones

CACJ has filed a letter brief in the California Supreme Court supporting
Stephen Greenberg's well crafted and extensive argument on the failure
of California reviewing courts--including the California Supreme Court--to
follow existing standards of review, particularly the standard applicable
to errors of constitutional dimension. John T. Philipsborn on the letter brief.

Finn Batato, et al

This week, CACJ and allies filed an Amicus Brief on Constitutional protections
of the 4th Amendment and civil forfeiture.

CACJ has been active on due process protections and supported recent legislation,
SB 443, which requires that a defendant be convicted of an underlying
crime before cash or property can be permanently seized. The law took
effect this year.

ALADS v. Superior Court

This case involves the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriff’s
(ALADS) challenge to a trial court order allowing the Sheriff’s
Department to inform the District Attorney’s Office that there may
be exculpatory or impeachment material in specific deputies’ personnel
files. CACJ jointly filed a brief with the ACLU Southern California, CPDA
and Dignity and Power Now in support of real parties, the Los Angeles
Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Jim McDonnell and the County of Los
Angeles. The brief argues that the
Brady procedure approved by the trial court is lawful and the sort of “laudably
established procedure” approved of by the California Supreme Court in
People v. Superior Court (Johnson) (2015) 61 Cal.4th 696, 721. Benjamin N. Gluck and Naeun Rim of Bird, Marella,
et al. and Peter J. Eliasberg Melanie R.P. Ochoa of ACLU Southern California, for
amici, with John Philipsborn and Steve Dunkle appearing for CACJ.

Briggs v. Jerry Brown

This is a case in which the Petitioner is asking the California Supreme
Court to find that Proposition 66, the ballot initiative which was proposed
to counter any proposal to repeal the death penalty in California, is
invalid. The challenge is made on the grounds that the initiative interferes
with the jurisdiction of the courts, violates the single subject rule
for propositions, violates the separation of powers and renders the death
penalty system in California unconstitutional. The brief was jointly filed
by CACJ and Death Penalty Focus. Robert Sanger and Steve Dunkle on the brief.

This is a case in which the Petitioner is asking the State Supreme Court
to consider whether a criminal defendant is entitled to obtain electronic
records by suboena duces tecum prior to trial. The questions before the
court are: (1) Did the Court of Appeal properly conclude that defendants
are not entitled to pretrial access to records in the possession of Facebook,
Instagram, and Twitter under the federal Stored Communications Act (SCA)
(18 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.) and
People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 117? (2) Does an order barring pretrial access to the
requested records violate defendants' right to compulsory process and
confrontation under the Sixth Amendment or their due process right to
a fair trial? (3) Should this court limit or overrule
People v. Hammon (1997) 15 Cal.4th 117? CACJ previously filed an amicus brief addressing
these questions. The court invited supplemental briefing on the issue
of whether the SCA should be construed to apply to only those communications
that were, when sent, configured to be private - e.g., restricted to "followers"
or "friends" - and not to communications that were, when sent, configured
to be public, and hence generally accessible to the public. Don Landis
on the brief for CACJ.

Williams v. Adams

CACJ joined NACDL in urging the granting of certiorari to a case that was
litigated from California courts into the Ninth Circuit, based in part
on the allegation that the trial court had erroneously dismissed a holdout
juror who was inclined towards voting for an acquittal. The concern addressed by
amici was that the Ninth Circuit had deferred entirely to a California
appellate court’s finding, unsupported in the trial record, that it was juror
bias that provided a basis for the removal. The challenge here was not
only to the violation of the right to trial by jury through trial court
interference with the deliberations, but also error in the Ninth Circuit
which allowed a state appellate court factual determination to provide
the basis for the eventual decision-making which was error under the state’s
appellate procedures. The USSC denied the petition. Timothy Simone, John
Grimm and Elizabeth Bonner of Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis in Washington,
D.C. represented CACJ and NACDL.

US v. Christiansen

CACJ, in a brief that was drafted by a team from Ropes and Gray in Boston
headed by Kirsten Mayer and contributed to by CACJ amicus chairs John
Philipsborn and Steve Dunkle, has asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari
in a case that raises the question of when, if ever, a trial court can
remove a sitting juror based on the trial court's view that there is ground
for removal especially where the removal of the juror has a coercive effect
to the rest of the jury.

Caroni v. US

CACJ joined with other criminal defense associations in submitting to the
United States Supreme Court a brief supporting a grant of certiorari in
Caroni v. US. The case is asking if it is a violation of Due Process for a court to
direct a verdict in favor of the government on an essential element, thereby
denying the accused the right to trial by jury on all elements.

In re Patterson

CACJ has joined with the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and a number
of other organizations, in submitting an Amicus brief in the case of
In re Patterson. CACJ has previously argued that defendants in criminal cases must be fully
advised of potential adverse immigration consequences prior to entering
a plea, and as they consider their legal options. It is critical for the
defense bar to be fully aware of this obligation, and the need for reviewing
courts to properly consider the prejudice of failures to address immigration
consequences in an effective manner. Although this case is still in litigation,
CACJ has previously briefed this issue and renews its support for ensuring
that adverse immigration consequences are properly dealt with.

CACJ thanks Cody Harris and the Keker & Van Nest firm in San Francisco
for its work on this case.

People v. Hudson

244 Cal.App.4th 1318 (A sentencing finding that a defendant’s drug
possession was not solely for personal use can be made by a judge by a
preponderance of the evidence.)

2016

County of Nevada v. Superior Court

Adventures in Litigating Attorney-Inmate VisitingBy Stephen Munkelt

I recently had the great honor and privilege of serving as lead counsel
for a passionate group of defenders fighting for jail visits without glass
barriers. The decision in
County of Nevada v. Superior Court (Siegfried) (Filed 4/23/2015) 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 412 (
Siegfried) represents a significant win for our county, and for future litigation
over attorney-client visits in jail or prison. There is now California
authority that due process under the Fourteenth Amendment “includes
the right to contact visits with counsel.”

Don Landis, Monterey County Assistant Public Defender, has written a CACJ
amicus brief addressing Facebook, Twitter, etc litigation--over the defense's
ability to get material from media companies to prepare a defense.

"CACJ will address what appears to be the elephant in the courtroom, but
has not generated much legal analysis in these proceedings- whether a
state court trial judge can rule on the federal constitutionality of a
federal statue as applied in a state court criminal proceedings."

Sara Johnson v. United States of America

Below is a brief on its way to the US Supreme Court in which CACJ is joining
with a number of other defense counsel organizations. Their aim is to
support the Supreme Court's consideration of whether the subject of restitution
should be the subject of the Sixth Amendment right to jury trial, and
individuals who are subject to restitution should be protected by greater
formalities against the imposition of restitution.

Pedro Jesus Gomez v. Superior Court, 223799

"A man convicted of attempted murder contends his prosecutor, now a Monterey
County judge, failed to turn over key evidence in his case. His attorneys
are also asking that all local judges be barred from presiding over a
hearing to investigate why a potentially exonerating videotape never surfaced
at trial."

John Philipsborn has submitted an amicus brief in the case,
located here.

2015

Jones v. Davis

The case is before the Ninth Circuit for review of a District Judge's ruling
that pervasive systemic delays invalidate the death penalty in California.
CACJ, NACDL and MCLAP have filed a brief to address the implications of
the delays in the appointment of counsel for death row inmates, and in
doing so points to the chronic underfunding of the defense function in
post-conviction death penalty litigation in California. Numerous other
groups are expected to address other aspects of this litigation, and reasons
for outlawing the death penalty as it is employed in California.

Orcutt v. Sup Ct

People v. Toure

People. v Brown

Luis v. United States

The United States Supreme Court has issued a decision in
Luis v. United States declaring federal forfeiture law in violation of the 6th Amendment Right
to Counsel if forfeiture includes untainted assets and restricts ability
to hire counsel. Over the last 5 years, CACJ has joined with other criminal
defense lawyer organizations in contesting the Government's broad approach
to the use of forfeiture laws to affect the ability of individuals to
retain counsel of choice, and to conduct a privately funded defense where
possible. In 2014, Chief Justice Roberts mentioned CACJ's briefing attacking
the degradation of the Sixth Amendment in the dissent that he filed in
Kaley v. United States 571 U.S.___(2014). This decision also has language
that reinforces the right to counsel and the need to properly fund indigent
defense. CACJ thanks Courtney Linn of the Orrick firm for fine work on
this case.

Kaley vs US

CACJ mentioned by the Supreme Court Chief Justice

CACJ was mentioned by name in Chief Justice's dissent in the opinion for
Kaley vs US. He referenced the Amicus Curiae Brief filed by CACJ on Jul
3 2013, by John T. Philipsborn and John B. Owens, et al.

or text CACJNEWS
to 22828 to join

The information on this website is for general information purposes only.
Nothing on this or associated pages, documents, comments, answers, emails,
or other communications should be taken as legal advice for any individual
case or situation. This information on this website is not intended to
create, and receipt or viewing of this information does not constitute,
an attorney-client relationship.